Earth still shifting? Pacific Ocean's gap closing in?

[JesusChica1991]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rocked-record-breaking-earthquakes-April.html

Thought this belonged here. It's a great article about the earthquakes just this year alone. As the song says, "I'm all shook up." What do you think is going on or what will happen? Volcano going to form? I noticed a lot of the earthquakes have gotten more intense along only the Pacific Ocean areas (especially the Ring of fire made famous for earthquakes and volcanoes which have gotten more intense over the past year) and sparingly the Atlantic...maybe the Pacific fault is gonna be covered by the Asian and North American fault eventually. I don't know really. It's just fun to think about.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Read David Wilkerson's 'The Vision.'

The month that shook the world: Incredible time-lapse reveals planet as it was rocked by record-breaking earthquakes in April | Mail Online

Thought this belonged here. It's a great article about the earthquakes just this year alone. As the song says, "I'm all shook up." What do you think is going on or what will happen? Volcano going to form? I noticed a lot of the earthquakes have gotten more intense along only the Pacific Ocean areas (especially the Ring of fire made famous for earthquakes and volcanoes which have gotten more intense over the past year) and sparingly the Atlantic...maybe the Pacific fault is gonna be covered by the Asian and North American fault eventually. I don't know really. It's just fun to think about.

 

[didymos]

Heresy! God created the earth as it is!

 

[tourist]

Increased earthquakes in diverse places was predicated in the bible. Nothing shakes me up anymore.

 

[Tintin]

Heresy! God created the earth as it is!

Continental drift as a result of the Great Flood around 4,500 years ago.

 

[Nautilus]

thats a lot of drifting in only 4,500 years...

 

[Tintin]

thats a lot of drifting in only 4,500 years...

Actually, most of that happened during the Flood.

 

[Nautilus]

the flood didnt last that long. Im pretty sure rapid shifting of tectonic plates/continental shelfs would be far more catastrophic to this planet than some rain.

 

[Lizathrose]

The flood didn't occur, to begin with. Flood geology is universally rejected by major geological institutes and national science adademies throughout the world, and for a vast number of reasons. Genesis should be taken allegorically, not literally.

 

[Nautilus]

I'm actually going to say its more than likely the flood did certainly occur just not in the way we know it today. All the early flood tales tend to all come from the mesopotamian/sumerian are of the world. Is it possible they once had a massive natural disaster that then became adopted? yes. Do i believe every inch of the planet was covered in water to a point that even say mt everest was covered and then said water magically evaporated? not so much

 

[faroukfarouk]

The flood didn't occur, to begin with. Flood geology is universally rejected by major geological institutes and national science adademies throughout the world, and for a vast number of reasons. Genesis should be taken allegorically, not literally.

Beg to differ; there is plenty of evidence - if it's evidence that professional geologists really want - that something rather cataclysmic happened in order for sea fossils to be found at a high altitude in mountains, as they have been. But of course, those who have figured that acknowledging Genesis also implies moral responsibility to the Creator, 'let's go on searching' is the likely response.

 

[Lizathrose]

It'd be reasonable to posit a natural disaster as a hypothetical potential inspiration for early Mesopotamian flood myths, but it's also possible that the discovery of inland fish fossils and sea shells in mountainous areas could've spurred them along. It's probably not possible to definitively argue any single underlying cause for flood-related tales, though -- especially given the chronological variances of actual natural disasters involving floods in ancient cities along the lines of Kish, Ur, and the like.

In any case, it's reasonable to hypothesize that a flood did occur, albeit on a local scale. Plausible hypotheses supported by archaeological findings, such as evidence of flooding in ancient Sumerian cities and city-states, do exist.

 

[Lizathrose]

Beg to differ; there is plenty of evidence - if it's evidence that professional geologists really want - that something rather cataclysmic happened in order for sea fossils to be found at a high altitude in mountains, as they have been. But of course, those who have figured that acknowledging Genesis also implies moral responsibility to the Creator, 'let's go on searching' is the likely response.

It's readily established that the fossils of aquatic organisms exist at high altitudes because of the movement of Earth's lithosphere over long periods of Earth's biological and geological history. There's a reason fossils found at high altitudes are exceptionally ancient and often long-extinct, often predating humanity by hundreds of millions of years.

The formation of mountains is a well-understood geological process in light of contemporary plate tectonics, and the presence of marine fossils in mountainous inland areas supports this. It's much simpler and more rational to simply conclude that no global flood was required to account for these fossils, especially in light of the lack of any established theory concerning a global flood, to begin with.

 

[Tintin]

I'm sorry, but that's putting Science above Scripture. Scripture should be used to interpret everything around us, not the other way around. I've read widely on the subject, both sides of the argument. If the Great Flood is allegory, where do we start to believe God's Word is historical truth? It's a slippery slope. Here's a funny idea! Maybe Genesis is the true account and the flood myths around the world are corruptions/deviations that attest to this one truth. Wow. I never thought about taking God's Word as authority over my life, rather than that of completely biased scientists and the like. Seriously, why do people view scientists as the harbingers of truth? They're not infallible but God's Word is.

Evolution and uniformitarinism are philosophical, not scientific beliefs. They're not truths that can be observed and tested in a lab. They're not truths at all.

 

[Lizathrose]

I'm sorry, but that's putting Science above Scripture. Scripture should be used to interpret everything around us, not the other way around. I've read widely on the subject, both sides of the argument. If the Great Flood is allegory, where do we start to believe God's Word is historical truth? It's a slippery slope. Here's a funny idea! Maybe Genesis is the true account and the flood myths around the world are corruptions/deviations that attest to this one truth. Wow. I never thought about taking God's Word as authority over my life, rather than that of completely biased scientists and the like. Seriously, why do people view scientists as the harbingers of truth? They're not infallible but God's Word is.

As a non-Christian, I suppose I can't authoritatively argue what might theologically constitute elevating science over scripture, although I'm tempted to assume that it's an ultimately subjective point of contention on the basis of a framework of interpretation within the Christian community. However, it's readily established in a great deal of the Christian world beyond the United States that Genesis should, either partially or completely, be taken from an allegorical perspective -- and there's an overall lack of established theological positions within most mainstream denominations concerning what constitutes an acceptable interpretation of Genesis, to begin with (i.e. allegorical, literal, or both). The Genesis flood is just one instance of a Biblical event now commonly regarded as partially or completely allegorical, mainstream American Protestantism notwithstanding.

Furthermore, the study of hermeneutics from within the sphere of established Biblical theology hardly teaches that a singularly literal or allegorical interpretation is appropriate. I feel as though it's too obvious to mention, but why should an allegorical interpretation of a given Biblical event negate the theological value of the text as a whole? There's no evidence that a "slippery slope" is damaging Christianity. If anything, new interpretations on the basis of scientific discoveries are keeping Christianity alive.

 

[Tintin]

As a non-Christian, I suppose I can't authoritatively argue what might theologically constitute elevating science over scripture, although I'm tempted to assume that it's an ultimately subjective point of contention on the basis of a framework of interpretation within the Christian community. However, it's readily established in a great deal of the Christian world beyond the United States that Genesis should, either partially or completely, be taken from an allegorical perspective -- and there's an overall lack of established theological positions within most mainstream denominations concerning what constitutes an acceptable interpretation of Genesis, to begin with (i.e. allegorical, literal, or both). The Genesis flood is just one instance of a Biblical event now commonly regarded as partially or completely allegorical, mainstream American Protestantism notwithstanding.

Furthermore, the study of hermeneutics from within the sphere of established Biblical theology hardly teaches that a singularly literal or allegorical interpretation is appropriate. I feel as though it's too obvious to mention, but why should an allegorical interpretation of a given Biblical event negate the theological value of the text as a whole? There's no evidence that a "slippery slope" is damaging Christianity. If anything, new interpretations on the basis of scientific discoveries are keeping Christianity alive.

Oh, I'm glad you mentioned that you're not a Christian. Your views make a lot more sense. It's the compromising Christians in this matter, that I really question. Believe it or not, crap like evolution and uniformitarinism have 'helped' huge numbers of young people to leave the Church. So yes, it's damn well damaging to Christianity.

 

[Lizathrose]

As for the notion that flood myths that differ from Genesis are "deviations," there's far more evidence that the Genesis flood itself, and much of Genesis as a whole, was heavily inspired by earlier Mesopotamian literature. Tablets associated with Atra-Hasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance, have well-documented textual similarities to the Genesis narrative, and both substantially predate Genesis. The Babylonian Enuma Elis, to an extent, also shares notable similarities with the Genesis narrative.

 

[Tintin]

I'm well aware of all of those texts and while the book of Genesis is, as a whole, younger than some of them, Noah's toledoth and those of his sons are older. Again, why does it matter if one part of the Bible is allegory and the other isn't? It matters because one has to be consistent within the genre it's written. Genesis 1-11 are written as historical accounts, as is the rest of Genesis. But there's little point discussing such things, trying to prove God's Word as historical truth, when you don't hold to the same beliefs as I do.

 

[didymos]

The flood didn't occur, to begin with. Flood geology is universally rejected by major geological institutes and national science adademies throughout the world, and for a vast number of reasons. Genesis should be taken allegorically, not literally.

ATHEIST ALERT, hehehe

 

[didymos]

As a non-Christian, I suppose I can't authoritatively argue what might theologically constitute elevating science over scripture, although I'm tempted to assume that it's an ultimately subjective point of contention on the basis of a framework of interpretation within the Christian community. However, it's readily established in a great deal of the Christian world beyond the United States that Genesis should, either partially or completely, be taken from an allegorical perspective -- and there's an overall lack of established theological positions within most mainstream denominations concerning what constitutes an acceptable interpretation of Genesis, to begin with (i.e. allegorical, literal, or both). The Genesis flood is just one instance of a Biblical event now commonly regarded as partially or completely allegorical, mainstream American Protestantism notwithstanding.

Furthermore, the study of hermeneutics from within the sphere of established Biblical theology hardly teaches that a singularly literal or allegorical interpretation is appropriate. I feel as though it's too obvious to mention, but why should an allegorical interpretation of a given Biblical event negate the theological value of the text as a whole? There's no evidence that a "slippery slope" is damaging Christianity. If anything, new interpretations on the basis of scientific discoveries are keeping Christianity alive.

........